I would like to add a little to Don Norman's remarks.
Most of the churn about practice and thesis tends to come from people who
have made little progress in doctoral study, most of the people that I meet
who have completed doctorates in design don't seem to have these problems.
As Lars-Henrik Stahl remarked in his paper for the 2000 La Clusaz
Conference, PhD students in Architecture frequently start with high
ambitions to "Make a dissertation instead of writing one". This early
idealism is eroded as the research proceeds and text begins to dominate to
the point where the artefacts are reduced to illustrations of arguments and
discussions in the text. Stahl linked this shift of emphasis to an
increasing concern, as the student progresses, with "theoretical
implications on a meta level".
There is a good deal of potential still to explore the methods of research
in design and the forms of communication that might comprise a thesis but,
as Don points out, the basics still remain.
Actually I'd go further. Don points out that contribution to knowledge is
central and the thesis must verify it but there is a further requirement,
the candidate must set out their claim for the award and that goes far
beyond stating the contribution. It is a question of "owning" the research.
In fact I am aware of one case (just one although I daresay there are
others) where the key generalisable contribution to knowledge is clear from
the examination of an engineering prototype produced in the research.
Previously the mechanical principles involved were not known, subsequently
any competent mechanical engineer could extract those principles and apply
them to a wide range of devices. However the prototype gives no explanation
of the methods of the research, its origins and context, the existing
knowledge in the field, how the methods were worked through to achieve the
result and how the result was validated.
If the only aim were to present the world with a new design and the designer
was happy to leave judgement on its generalisability and relevance to others
then I would say we might have an original and important contribution to
knowledge but no way of knowing whether it is the product of chance, an
intuitive leap or a directed programme of research. You only get a PhD for
the third option and you have to produce a thesis to argue your claim.
(Of course chance and intuitive leaps can play in important part in
research)
STAHL, L. (2000) "Artifact versus text in design research", in Doctoral
Education in Design: Foundations for the Future (ed Durling and Friedman),
Staffordshire University Press, Stoke, UK, 2000 pp 469-473
best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
......................................................................
Chris Rust
Sheffield Institute of Arts
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
http://chrisrust.wordpress.com/
[log in to unmask]
|